I see you mean the arched, capped box in the back, behind the boat with its two stands. Readers will want to know this review starts at 28:00 in RJ's link and there are good angles on it for 30:00-32:00. Otherwise the link is primarily about Abusir pyramids (5th dynasty), while Edfu temple is Ptolemaic dynasty, after the 31st. The OP attempts to make this Edfu box contemporaneous with a similar structure at Abusir. I'll grant the evidence that its construction solidity makes it appear much older, but not necessarily prediluvian.
Abusir is quite interesting for its own sake, in that the 5th dynasty had nowhere near the technology of the 4th, and had abandoned Giza. This is consistent with a dynasty break as would be necessary in the event of the deluge. So it's possible these are just postdiluvian Old Kingdom work, while the Great Pyramids and Sphinx would be prediluvian, along with Menes.
5th dynasty would be overlapping with Sumer and Akkad, and with the rapid Hamitic growth and language dispersion testified by the Table of Nations. I'm still going to read the Edfu inscriptions linked by your video, but I don't expect surprises.
u/freedomlogic, u/Primate98, the cylinder seals are also very interesting as separate testimonies. At c/Christianity we discussed Heiser's expert ruling on some of these seals, as the iconography can be studied very exactly. The period of the seals is similar to Abusir (not Edfu), but the traditions are often from quite different strands.
I feel pretty sure you don't want to hear this, but I'll say it anyway: I was finished with Heiser as trustworthy or an expert after about three minutes of exposure to his work. Whatever else he might have to say, I believe he was promoted specifically to divert people from study of the Anunnaki. This is one of the Big Secrets, so that is the importance.
Several years ago, as I was beginning to study the "ancient alien hypothesis" for myself, I kept hearing Heiser come up in regard to being a "Sitchin debunker". In the interest of scholarship, I went to his site where there was an autoplay video front and center.
Heiser said, "Sitchin made up everything about the Anunnaki. The Sumerians never mentioned them once. Go to the ETCSL, put 'anunnaki' in the search, and nothing comes up." He demonstrated this on screen.
Well, that's true enough: "Anunnaki" was a term Sitchin came up with. But... the Sumerians referred to them as "the Anuna" or "the Anuna gods", and did so prominently, many, many times.
Can Heiser really not know this? Whatever conclusion you may come to regarding how he came to his conclusion, I personally never considered that he would have anything worth listening to.
Thanks for the detail. I've been skeptical of Sitchin for other reasons so you can understand that Heiser would resonate better with me. What he seemed to be doing in that clip was to demonstrate that without exacting quotation of the ancient sources, which he was indeed expert on, one weakens one's own case. I don't immediately have a proof or disproof that Anunnaki is a spelling initiated by Sitchin.
Despite his flaws, I haven't ruled out all of von Daniken yet, because it looks like the Igigi, related to the Anuna, may have been sighted in the New World. I'm also pursuing the track of Inanna with relish, and she seems counted among them. But the biggie is the legend behind Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch, a little bit in Jubilees, moderated by the king lists and the other most ancient legends. If you think those texts may "divert" people from Anunnaki study, well, that's where I've been diverted. What would be interesting today in their study, other than as a history not to repeat?
So I'll take your Heiser note under advisement, but when I've followed through he's always been reliable.
Well, to reiterate the point about Heiser, every single other thing he said may have been true and correct, but getting people away from the Anunnaki was the crucial goal. To paraphrase and invert a famous Winston Churchill quote, "In the psywar, the lies are so precious they must always be attended by a bodyguard of truth."
In fact, I have come to recognize this as by far the most prevalent mode of "disinformation". The word itself conveys that some lie is being pushed--which is true in limited circumstances--but far more common is simply keeping people away from the truth. Everyone is then free to select as they wish from the numerous attractive diversions, irrelevancies, and dead ends presented to them.
The texts you mentioned, and numerous others, far from being a diversion from the Anunnaki are where we are informed about them. The Anunnaki are in fact the lens through which they can finally be understood as they were written.
As an example since you're interested in her, did you know Inanna is mentioned in the Bible? It's plain, but to recognize it you have to understand her name as a (slightly corrupted) term in the Sumerian language. She was, of course, one of the Anunnaki, and so we see them specifically named in the Bible.
I don't think many people--or any that I know of, anyway--who study the Bible know this, or would acknowledge it if pointed out to them.
A quick hunt shows you mean Milkoth haShamaim as a translated title? Very good, no, I wasn't thinking of that connection specifically though I had it on my radar. It's more direct for me to say Dumuzid is Tammuz.
My question is though what is the most significant good info on the subject in your opinion? What do you think is being hidden from us? If we tracked the career of Naram-Sin King of the Universe, for instance, who enlarged empire and tried to make himself one of these beings (an Anuna), we might get a little instruction, but for us to get to today's problems takes a bit more recent study too IMHO. So those who are missing out on the ancient history aren't missing that much by comparison.
I meant the translation of "Inanna" from the Sumerian, which they give right in her wiki:
Her primary title is "the Queen of Heaven".
And for once on a crucial matter, they give a correct translation from the Hebrew you stated. I don't really study the Bible in anything like the normal sense that others do, so when I happened to stumble across it (like Jer 44:17), I thought, "Hey, does anyone realize this is referring to one of the Anunnaki?"
I also came to note the black hole surrounding that question, which may just sound like a glib expression at first. Didn't people wonder why the Israelites got so hung up on a made-up deity from a civilization that died a thousand or two years before? I guess many times you just never ask the question until after you come to know the answer.
To be brief about the importance of all this ancient history, to me it's still very much alive and in effect. For example, one of the questions you see come up from time to time in conspiracy circles is, "Why do the Elites worship Satan?" I had no idea until I put the big pieces together.
To be extremely brief, Marduk disagreed with Enlil (spoiler: Yahweh) as to the nature and fate of the human race. To settle the matter, an experiment was set up in which we are now engaged. If Satan (Marduk) could come to dominate us, then that would prove he was correct and he would be allowed to continue to rule as he saw fit, given that we had shown ourselves no better than livestock. Regulated by some methodology that remains mysterious to me, a small fraction of us were given higher consciousness as sword and shield.
The rule, though, was that he could use no advanced tech or brute force, only seduction. We had to do it to ourselves through a free will choice. As Satan and his cohorts were small in number, working through compromised humans was necessary. That's what we see now: the Elites literally work for him.
I believe this truth is known only at the highest levels, and perhaps even there they are deceived. Understanding the Anunnaki is key to all this, and so that makes it one of the Big Secrets.
Every current Anunnaki researcher is either off the track or has been compromised. You're reading it here because it has been written nowhere else publicly available (but maybe in the Vatican basement, eh?). That's how it goes when "They" really want to keep a secret.
NEW Discoveries and Digs at Pyramid Site of Abu Sir! More Ancient Egyptian Lost Technology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsIPLc1Auoo
Strikingly reminiscent of depictions on three cylinder seals, which some believe may be Sumerian star gates.
Doesnt even have my favorite seal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-dots_glyph
I can hear my old roomate now, "But how do you know the pictures arent just made up. "
Its a pretty iconic picture that has made its way down through the ages.
Depicting the creation of humankind with the vessel of life. Not sure what some of the rest of the stuff on there is supposed to be.
https://art.thewalters.org/detail/10775/cylinder-seal-with-winged-animals-with-human-heads-and-a-bird/
This is the Assyrian version, but its more like a tree, not a vessel/container.
Neat picture the OP showed. The great pyramid was on my bucket list, but I dont think ill ever be able to afford going there.
And even if I could, I stick out like a sore thumb, id prolly get my head cut off.
My favorite cylinder seal is this one:
Planet X / Nibiru: An analysis of Akkadian Seal VA/243 (7/27/2013)
My favorite debunking of it is "that's not really the Sun in the center", even though it's identical to the Sun on every f-ing box of Raisin Bran.
awesome article thank you
I see you mean the arched, capped box in the back, behind the boat with its two stands. Readers will want to know this review starts at 28:00 in RJ's link and there are good angles on it for 30:00-32:00. Otherwise the link is primarily about Abusir pyramids (5th dynasty), while Edfu temple is Ptolemaic dynasty, after the 31st. The OP attempts to make this Edfu box contemporaneous with a similar structure at Abusir. I'll grant the evidence that its construction solidity makes it appear much older, but not necessarily prediluvian.
Abusir is quite interesting for its own sake, in that the 5th dynasty had nowhere near the technology of the 4th, and had abandoned Giza. This is consistent with a dynasty break as would be necessary in the event of the deluge. So it's possible these are just postdiluvian Old Kingdom work, while the Great Pyramids and Sphinx would be prediluvian, along with Menes.
5th dynasty would be overlapping with Sumer and Akkad, and with the rapid Hamitic growth and language dispersion testified by the Table of Nations. I'm still going to read the Edfu inscriptions linked by your video, but I don't expect surprises.
u/freedomlogic, u/Primate98, the cylinder seals are also very interesting as separate testimonies. At c/Christianity we discussed Heiser's expert ruling on some of these seals, as the iconography can be studied very exactly. The period of the seals is similar to Abusir (not Edfu), but the traditions are often from quite different strands.
I feel pretty sure you don't want to hear this, but I'll say it anyway: I was finished with Heiser as trustworthy or an expert after about three minutes of exposure to his work. Whatever else he might have to say, I believe he was promoted specifically to divert people from study of the Anunnaki. This is one of the Big Secrets, so that is the importance.
Several years ago, as I was beginning to study the "ancient alien hypothesis" for myself, I kept hearing Heiser come up in regard to being a "Sitchin debunker". In the interest of scholarship, I went to his site where there was an autoplay video front and center.
Heiser said, "Sitchin made up everything about the Anunnaki. The Sumerians never mentioned them once. Go to the ETCSL, put 'anunnaki' in the search, and nothing comes up." He demonstrated this on screen.
Well, that's true enough: "Anunnaki" was a term Sitchin came up with. But... the Sumerians referred to them as "the Anuna" or "the Anuna gods", and did so prominently, many, many times.
Can Heiser really not know this? Whatever conclusion you may come to regarding how he came to his conclusion, I personally never considered that he would have anything worth listening to.
Thanks for the detail. I've been skeptical of Sitchin for other reasons so you can understand that Heiser would resonate better with me. What he seemed to be doing in that clip was to demonstrate that without exacting quotation of the ancient sources, which he was indeed expert on, one weakens one's own case. I don't immediately have a proof or disproof that Anunnaki is a spelling initiated by Sitchin.
Despite his flaws, I haven't ruled out all of von Daniken yet, because it looks like the Igigi, related to the Anuna, may have been sighted in the New World. I'm also pursuing the track of Inanna with relish, and she seems counted among them. But the biggie is the legend behind Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch, a little bit in Jubilees, moderated by the king lists and the other most ancient legends. If you think those texts may "divert" people from Anunnaki study, well, that's where I've been diverted. What would be interesting today in their study, other than as a history not to repeat?
So I'll take your Heiser note under advisement, but when I've followed through he's always been reliable.
Well, to reiterate the point about Heiser, every single other thing he said may have been true and correct, but getting people away from the Anunnaki was the crucial goal. To paraphrase and invert a famous Winston Churchill quote, "In the psywar, the lies are so precious they must always be attended by a bodyguard of truth."
In fact, I have come to recognize this as by far the most prevalent mode of "disinformation". The word itself conveys that some lie is being pushed--which is true in limited circumstances--but far more common is simply keeping people away from the truth. Everyone is then free to select as they wish from the numerous attractive diversions, irrelevancies, and dead ends presented to them.
The texts you mentioned, and numerous others, far from being a diversion from the Anunnaki are where we are informed about them. The Anunnaki are in fact the lens through which they can finally be understood as they were written.
As an example since you're interested in her, did you know Inanna is mentioned in the Bible? It's plain, but to recognize it you have to understand her name as a (slightly corrupted) term in the Sumerian language. She was, of course, one of the Anunnaki, and so we see them specifically named in the Bible.
I don't think many people--or any that I know of, anyway--who study the Bible know this, or would acknowledge it if pointed out to them.
A quick hunt shows you mean Milkoth haShamaim as a translated title? Very good, no, I wasn't thinking of that connection specifically though I had it on my radar. It's more direct for me to say Dumuzid is Tammuz.
My question is though what is the most significant good info on the subject in your opinion? What do you think is being hidden from us? If we tracked the career of Naram-Sin King of the Universe, for instance, who enlarged empire and tried to make himself one of these beings (an Anuna), we might get a little instruction, but for us to get to today's problems takes a bit more recent study too IMHO. So those who are missing out on the ancient history aren't missing that much by comparison.
I meant the translation of "Inanna" from the Sumerian, which they give right in her wiki:
And for once on a crucial matter, they give a correct translation from the Hebrew you stated. I don't really study the Bible in anything like the normal sense that others do, so when I happened to stumble across it (like Jer 44:17), I thought, "Hey, does anyone realize this is referring to one of the Anunnaki?"
I also came to note the black hole surrounding that question, which may just sound like a glib expression at first. Didn't people wonder why the Israelites got so hung up on a made-up deity from a civilization that died a thousand or two years before? I guess many times you just never ask the question until after you come to know the answer.
To be brief about the importance of all this ancient history, to me it's still very much alive and in effect. For example, one of the questions you see come up from time to time in conspiracy circles is, "Why do the Elites worship Satan?" I had no idea until I put the big pieces together.
To be extremely brief, Marduk disagreed with Enlil (spoiler: Yahweh) as to the nature and fate of the human race. To settle the matter, an experiment was set up in which we are now engaged. If Satan (Marduk) could come to dominate us, then that would prove he was correct and he would be allowed to continue to rule as he saw fit, given that we had shown ourselves no better than livestock. Regulated by some methodology that remains mysterious to me, a small fraction of us were given higher consciousness as sword and shield.
The rule, though, was that he could use no advanced tech or brute force, only seduction. We had to do it to ourselves through a free will choice. As Satan and his cohorts were small in number, working through compromised humans was necessary. That's what we see now: the Elites literally work for him.
I believe this truth is known only at the highest levels, and perhaps even there they are deceived. Understanding the Anunnaki is key to all this, and so that makes it one of the Big Secrets.
Every current Anunnaki researcher is either off the track or has been compromised. You're reading it here because it has been written nowhere else publicly available (but maybe in the Vatican basement, eh?). That's how it goes when "They" really want to keep a secret.
Didn't I see similar objects (shrines?) in the quarry-looking area outside of the pyramids?
Edit: Here's one outside but not what I was referring to.
Edit 2: Found it (one of them anyway). Located at Elephantine Island near the famous unfinished Aswan obelisk.
Aka alter/altar (alternating choice) in the back (ignorance) at the temple (temporal discernment) of edfu/idfu (ongoing infusion)...
Looking implies locking onto artificial form (suggested information), while ignoring natural flow (perceivable inspiration).
Inspiration flows through one...holding onto information makes one feel flooded by input.